Why is the College of Swords not useless? Please tell me.

[Man_Over_Game]

For the College of Swords, what exactly is the point? I'm just not exactly sure how you're supposed to use this class.

You're not allowed a shield, unlike Valor, because you don't have proficiency in it.
The fact that you aren't allowed a shield makes the Dueling Fighting Style fairly useless.
Your sword flourishes don't work with a bonus action attack,
They don't offer up much sustained damage,
And they pull from your Bardic Inspiration uses, which could be used for plenty of other important things.
Your spell list doesn't support melee combat.
Virtually everything you gain in this subclass is done better as a Bladesinger, who even gets Performance as a free skill.

Please let there be someone who can show me the light of this subclass.

I'm not looking for any specific builds that make it "viable" (I'm looking at you, Hexblade). How does this class stand on its own two feet?

[Snowbluff]

The swords bonus for flourishes is better than the Valor one by a good amount.

Also you can't make a bonus action attack without making an action attack more of the time anyway.

Bards are better with skills than a bladesinger by far.

All bard features use inspiration. However, it comes back on a short rest and Swords can use them ad nauseum at higher levels.

Bard spell list is whatever they want it to be at higher levels. At lower levels they have enough good control spells to justify their casting. I like Blindness, Heat Metal, Hypnotic Pattern, and Bestow Curse.

[ad_hoc]

The swords bonus for flourishes is better than the Valor one by a good amount.


They're not. Valor and base inspiration use is better than the flourishes. Basic inspiration gives the die to any d20 roll which is better than the flourishes. Valor adds the ability to boost AC which is quite good. It's not as good as Lore's Cutting Words, but it's good enough.

Slashing Flourish - This is a waste. 2dX damage is just not worth the die.
Mobile Flourish - This is situational. When it is useful it's a good option, the only one that rivals the base inspiration use, but will rarely happen.
Defensive Flourish - This is the default one to use, though it is worse than the base inspiration. The Valor defensive use is better because it can be given to other characters, used after seeing the roll to hit, and used for d20 rolls if not needed for defense.

I think Swords is fine. They get a fighting style and the flourishes, while not as good, are still usable. They perform as advertised, even if that is a little weaker, like the Sun Soul Monk.

[Alexwellace]

I mean...here you are asking ''why would anyone max out this class.'', I'd like to counter with ''why would anyone max out any bard class?''. There capstone is very underwhelming to say the least, so I don't think it's exactly fair to suggest the class is useless without taking into account the obvious multiclassing potentisal, specifically of the Hexblade.

With just that single point in Hexblade, maybe two, the whole class just fits together so well. Single attribute dependant, Shield proficency, the spell Shield, 1 or two spell slots on short rest alongside all your bardic inspiration. It's very fun to play to be so self-relient while still having the utility of being a bard. Between defensive flourish, the shield (with War caster feat) and the shield spell I can tank the heavy hitter for a round or two with some pretty ridiculous AC potential. And all those resources come back on a short rest, depending on how many shield spells I've used.

Without Hexblade? Sure, it's probably a little underwhelming, sitting at a similar place as Pact of the Blade Warlocks. But with Hexblade it's one of the most dynamic and versitile characters I've played. And I'm only lvl 7 (6 Sword Bard, 1 Hexblade, gonna take Hexblade to 2, then carry on with Bard), it'll only go up from here!

[Aett_Thorn]

They're not. Valor and base inspiration use is better than the flourishes. Basic inspiration gives the die to any d20 roll which is better than the flourishes. Valor adds the ability to boost AC which is quite good. It's not as good as Lore's Cutting Words, but it's good enough.

Slashing Flourish - This is a waste. 2dX damage is just not worth the die.
Mobile Flourish - This is situational. When it is useful it's a good option, the only one that rivals the base inspiration use, but will rarely happen.
Defensive Flourish - This is the default one to use, though it is worse than the base inspiration. The Valor defensive use is better because it can be given to other characters, used after seeing the roll to hit, and used for d20 rolls if not needed for defense.

I think Swords is fine. They get a fighting style and the flourishes, while not as good, are still usable. They perform as advertised, even if that is a little weaker, like the Sun Soul Monk.

I would argue that it's not weaker, just more selfish.

Slashing Flourish has its uses while trying to clear out the mooks
Mobile Flourish is highly situational, but can be great at times (especially if you're a ranged character and use it to keep the enemy away)

Defensive Flourish is the biggest difference. You get to roll once, and apply that extra AC until the start of your next turn. For the Valor Bard, the character that you want to use it has to have a Bardic Inspiration on them, and then when they do get the bonus AC, it's only against that one attack. Plus, you get the damage bonus on top of that, while the target of a Valor Bard's Inspiration has to choose between the extra damage OR the AC boost.

Now, I would say that Battle Magic is probably a better level 14 feature, since you can cast a decent control or damage spell, and then attack as a bonus action, instead of just using unlimited flourishes. However, Master's Flourish does allow you to use your own features while still having a pool of Inspiration to hand out to your teammates, making you less selfish at that level.


Again, I wouldn't say that one is better than the other, but they are different and go to different playstyles.

[TheFryingPen]

For the College of Swords, what exactly is the point? I'm just not exactly sure how you're supposed to use this class.

You're not allowed a shield, unlike Valor, because you don't have proficiency in it.
The fact that you aren't allowed a shield makes the Dueling Fighting Style fairly useless.
Your sword flourishes don't work with a bonus action attack,
They don't offer up much sustained damage,
And they pull from your Bardic Inspiration uses, which could be used for plenty of other important things.
Your spell list doesn't support melee combat.
Virtually everything you gain in this subclass is done better as a Bladesinger, who even gets Performance as a free skill.

Please let there be someone who can show me the light of this subclass.

I'm not looking for any specific builds that make it "viable" (I'm looking at you, Hexblade). How does this class stand on its own two feet?


If you want a shield, you should get the proficiency elsewhere. Otherwise you'd want to stick to TWF for Swords bard.
You'll have enough chances to use your inspiration dice during your attack actions, so there's no urgent need to be able to use them with your BA attack.
You'll do as much damage as a TWF fighter until level 11 and still get full spell progression (at that point you have magical secrets to get spells that boost your melee performance). You'll get more short rest resources (inspiration dice) to use than a battle master has superiority dice.
If you use your flourishes well they'll be better uses for your inspiration dice than normal inspiration. And you can still use normal inspiration if you see the need to.
Spell list: You can't cast and attack at the same time anyway. Alter between melee and spells. Many spells are as effective from melee as from range. Being a "martial" and another body in melee that can perform well with attacks alone makes some spells a better too (earth tremor, faerie fire, dissonant whispers, cloud of daggers, hold person, silence, fear, greater invis), though it depends on the party line up and you eventually have to be careful with concentration.
Bladesingers get a larger spell list, but completely lack healing spells and the short rest inspiration dice to buff themselves or others. They also have less skills, no jack of all trades, lower Hit Dice... They have other strengths and work differently, but Sword bard offers a lot Bladesingers don't.





They're not. Valor and base inspiration use is better than the flourishes. Basic inspiration gives the die to any d20 roll which is better than the flourishes. Valor adds the ability to boost AC which is quite good. It's not as good as Lore's Cutting Words, but it's good enough.

Slashing Flourish - This is a waste. 2dX damage is just not worth the die.
Mobile Flourish - This is situational. When it is useful it's a good option, the only one that rivals the base inspiration use, but will rarely happen.
Defensive Flourish - This is the default one to use, though it is worse than the base inspiration. The Valor defensive use is better because it can be given to other characters, used after seeing the roll to hit, and used for d20 rolls if not needed for defense.

I think Swords is fine. They get a fighting style and the flourishes, while not as good, are still usable. They perform as advertised, even if that is a little weaker, like the Sun Soul Monk.

Imo, comparing blade flourishes vs combat inspiration:

Offensive:
Flourishes (+ default inspiration) are better. You get default +10ft movement speed without spending resources. The added damage is at least the same and potentially much higher than what combat inspiration would add (slashing can hit multiple opponents) and you can get additional mobility, battlefield control and/or defense on top of it. Also, blade flourishes don't require you to spend your bonus action to inflict the extra damage. I'd argue that even default bardic inspiration is better than combat inspiration when used for offense, because turning a miss into a hit is likely to result into a higher damage gain than what the inspiration die would add.

Defensive:
Situational. Combat inspiration takes one bonus action and one reaction to be used defensively and only works against one attack. While you have the advantage of choosing when to use it, it can still roll low and be hit. Defensive flourish again gets you 10ft movement speed, 1dx armor against every attack for a whole round, extra damage and does not take a bonus action or reaction. However, it requires you to hit with an attack to be able to use. If you do so, you're guaranteed to benefit from the resource spent (damage) and potentially prevent more attacks than a use combat inspiration. If you want to prevent single, strong hits vs. foes not hit by the characters being attacked by them, CI is better, but being in the fray against multiple opponents, wanting to cut them down and having to endure multiple attacks, Defensive Flourish has more impact.


The upside of combat inspiration is that you can use it on others, but the downside is that you can't use it on yourself.
A swords bard can however still buff the offense (attack rolls) and defense (saving throws) of allies with standard bardic inspiration and his own damage, armor and mobility with flourishes.
A valor bard expends the options in which allies can use bardic inspiration but gains no way to benefit from it himself.

Imo, as one of the not so sturdy classes that also has the ability to get up fallen allies with spells, a bard should be able to look after itself when engaging in melee. That's why I'd always prefer swords over valor, unless I would be able to create a character at level 14, because battle magic is awesome.

[ad_hoc]

People are looking at the +dmg use of Valor's inspiration and noting that it isn't good. This is true.

Never use it.

That doesn't mean that Swords is good just because it does dmg and something else.

The default bardic inspiration is very good. +dX on any d20 roll (spent after seeing the roll) is great. Saving Throws are big here as is turning a miss into a hit.

So we're looking at the +AC use.

Defensive Flourish gives +AC until the next round, but it may have no effect at all. If all of the rolls against you are too high or low for it to matter then all it did was +dX damage which is a waste.

Valor's has the option to use it when it will be effective. Default inspiration is still better in more cases, but the +AC still has its use. Esp. for a character with lower defenses.

This is a common mistake and it is similar to Mage Armour vs Shield. People see +3 AC for 8 hours and think that provides more defense than +5AC for a round. Only one is cast ahead of time and one is cast after seeing the roll. Only 1 in 7 attacks on average will be impacted by Mage Armour. At +3 it might not save you from a devastating attack where as the +5 might. Shield is more cost effective unless you're taking a lot of attacks. If choosing between them, go with Shield (though both is better of course).

[Jerrykhor]

From my experience, Swords is the College nobody picks when playing Bard :smallbiggrin: Lore Bard is just too good, both in fun and power. IMO Swords got the same problem as 4E Monk, a subclass that adds magic to a base class that is fully martial based. Swords Bards is the other way round.

[TheFryingPen]

People are looking at the +dmg use of Valor's inspiration and noting that it isn't good. This is true.

Never use it.

That doesn't mean that Swords is good just because it does dmg and something else.


Depending on the situation you might not want to use all your inspiration dice for flourishes, but they are overall a better way to use them than combat inspiration, imo. When you want to go melee with your bard blade flourishes are pretty much the thing you want to be able to use. How are they not good options for a martial oriented bard?



The default bardic inspiration is very good. +dX on any d20 roll (spent after seeing the roll) is great. Saving Throws are big here as is turning a miss into a hit.


True, but bardic inspiration doesn't guarantee success in most cases. And it might not even get a good chance to be used effectively (attacks roll so high that it's unlikely to make a difference, succeeding throws without it...) before the combat ends.



So we're looking at the +AC use.

Defensive Flourish gives +AC until the next round, but it may have no effect at all. If all of the rolls against you are too high or low for it to matter then all it did was +dX damage which is a waste.


Same goes for combat inspiration, but depending on how many attacks you'll be target of, Defensive Flourish can have more chances to deflect attacks. And I don't think 1dx damage + an additional bonus action (instead of inspiring) is a waste. Having a guaranteed return for your resource investment and potentially even more benefits is pretty good. At least much better than using bardic or combat inspiration and gaining nothing out of it.



Valor's has the option to use it when it will be effective. Default inspiration is still better in more cases, but the +AC still has its use. Esp. for a character with lower defenses.


Agreed.



This is a common mistake and it is similar to Mage Armour vs Shield. People see +3 AC for 8 hours and think that provides more defense than +5AC for a round. Only one is cast ahead of time and one is cast after seeing the roll. Only 1 in 7 attacks on average will be impacted by Mage Armour. At +3 it might not save you from a devastating attack where as the +5 might. Shield is more cost effective unless you're taking a lot of attacks. If choosing between them, go with Shield (though both is better of course).

What's the mistake there? I say it's situational. Depending on how many attacks are going to be made against you over 8h, Mage Armor might be a much better use of the slot. If I planned to go to the front lines, I'd rather have every seventh attack stopped by my spell for a whole day than every fourth for one round. RAW Shield isn't cast after seeing the roll, you only know that an attack hits you if you don't cast it and it still might hit you when you cast it. Shield's better when you expect few attacks over a long period of time, Mage Armor for more of them.

[History_buff]

From my experience, Swords is the College nobody picks when playing Bard :smallbiggrin: Lore Bard is just too good, both in fun and power. IMO Swords got the same problem as 4E Monk, a subclass that adds magic to a base class that is fully martial based. Swords Bards is the other way round.

Just two levels of fighter gets you shield proficiency, second wind, another fighting style, and action surge. Action surge is so freaking good on a caster.

You could opt to give up bard 18 magical secrets and go eldritch knight for weapon bond, the shield spell and absorb elements, expeditious retreat ain’t too bad either.

Basically with a little bit of multiclassing your AC will be absolutely ridiculous. I’m talking potential AC in the 30s. I took a character to level 20 with this build and he could stand toe to toe with anything. (Weak to charm and mental effects that don’t have Cha saves though)

[PeteNutButter]

It's worth noting that many classes/subclasses are a lot better with multiclassing. Anything that provides a stacking AC bonus is going to scale exceptionally well with already high AC.

Even with taking multiclassing off the table, you can see the class shine on its own. If I were to build a single class Swords Bard, I'd go one of two ways. 1) Take the medium armor feat to rock a 19 AC with half plate and shield. Defensive flourishes put you in the 20s on AC. You'll be doing just fine. 2) Take the mobile feat (variant human) and run around like a monk with 50 ft movement speed, dual wielding for solid respectable damage.

When comparing the class to the blade singer the swords bard has a few notable advantages:
-You don't have to be a stupid knife ear.
-The fighting style
-1 hp per level. While not a massive advantage on its own, blade singer's biggest weakness its its hp, so it's worth noting.
-A "weaker" but more versatile spell list. Wizard spells might be better at most things, but the bard can do things the wizard can't, such as healing. Being able to self heal as a melee character is always nice.
-Skillz. Performance is generally a meh skill so I'd basically ignore it on the blade singer. The bard gets an extra skill that can go anywhere and jack of all trades which helps on initiative as well as things like dispel magic checks.

[Man_Over_Game]

All bard features use inspiration. However, it comes back on a short rest and Swords can use them ad nauseum at higher levels.

Quick correction on that, Bardic Inspiration regenerates on a Long Rest. That's why the capstone gives you 1 Bardic Inspiration when you start a fight with 0.

[Man_Over_Game]

Even with taking multiclassing off the table, you can see the class shine on its own. If I were to build a single class Swords Bard, I'd go one of two ways. 1) Take the medium armor feat to rock a 19 AC with half plate and shield. Defensive flourishes put you in the 20s on AC. You'll be doing just fine. 2) Take the mobile feat (variant human) and run around like a monk with 50 ft movement speed, dual wielding for solid respectable damage.

Both excellent points. I personally really like the idea of Medium Armor Master, putting your AC really high without needing anything more than a 16 in Dex. That's exactly 20 with a shield, and more with the Defensive Flourish.

[Daghoulish]

Quick correction on that, Bardic Inspiration regenerates on a Long Rest. That's why the capstone gives you 1 Bardic Inspiration when you start a fight with 0.

Only true of pre-5th level bards, afterwords BI is a short rest resource.
Font of Inspiration-Beginning when you reach 5th level, you regain all of your expended uses of Bardic Inspiration when you finish a short or long rest.

[BobZan]

Hexblade/Swords bard is awesome!!!!! SAD and can be hard to hit with ok damage and a lot of tricks

[Snowbluff]

Quick correction on that, Bardic Inspiration regenerates on a Long Rest. That's why the capstone gives you 1 Bardic Inspiration when you start a fight with 0.
As said, it's a short rest at level 5.


The Valor defensive use is better because it can be given to other characters, used after seeing the roll to hit, and used for d20 rolls if not needed for defense.


As said, it only applies to one attack and requires your bonus action and then your reaction.

Trying to correct me, SMH.

I do think Valor bard's war casting is super cool, though.


Hexblade/Swords bard is awesome!!!!! SAD and can be hard to hit with ok damage and a lot of tricks

I like Hexblade 5 + Whisper Bard personally. ;p

[Man_Over_Game]

Only true of pre-5th level bards, afterwords BI is a short rest resource.
Font of Inspiration-Beginning when you reach 5th level, you regain all of your expended uses of Bardic Inspiration when you finish a short or long rest.


As said, it's a short rest at level 5.


You're both right, really sorry, reread the bard right after I posted that. Derp.

[ThePolarBear]

They're not. Valor and base inspiration use is better than the flourishes.
[...]
though it is worse than the base inspiration.
[...]
The Valor defensive use is better because it can be given to other characters


With exceptions (Ability checks for Lore, Fluorishes for Swords...), you can't normally inspire yourself...

[Citan]

People are looking at the +dmg use of Valor's inspiration and noting that it isn't good. This is true.

Never use it.

That doesn't mean that Swords is good just because it does dmg and something else.

The default bardic inspiration is very good. +dX on any d20 roll (spent after seeing the roll) is great. Saving Throws are big here as is turning a miss into a hit.

So we're looking at the +AC use.

Defensive Flourish gives +AC until the next round, but it may have no effect at all. If all of the rolls against you are too high or low for it to matter then all it did was +dX damage which is a waste.

Valor's has the option to use it when it will be effective. Default inspiration is still better in more cases, but the +AC still has its use. Esp. for a character with lower defenses.

This is a common mistake and it is similar to Mage Armour vs Shield. People see +3 AC for 8 hours and think that provides more defense than +5AC for a round. Only one is cast ahead of time and one is cast after seeing the roll. Only 1 in 7 attacks on average will be impacted by Mage Armour. At +3 it might not save you from a devastating attack where as the +5 might. Shield is more cost effective unless you're taking a lot of attacks. If choosing between them, go with Shield (though both is better of course).
So basically you're saying that the bonus AC is mostly useless because you use it in anticipation, contrarily to Shield/Valor's "on the fly" one...

Frankly, it's a pointless argument. You usually have a decent knowledge about the enemy's ability to threaten you. So if you had to take something against the feature, it should rather be that it requires the Attack action to be taken. Because you're still a fullcaster. But then we'd enter the realm of "how many rounds / how long concentration / etc".
Let's just keep at "when you have cast an essential spell, it's a great way to help maintaining concentration for very little cost (you're still doing mostly the same damage as with a Vicious Mockery until level 11 at least)".
Because yeah, with Valor you can make the most of it, but it's one reaction against one only attack, and you're still not sure it will make a difference by the way.
So facing the perspective of a single attack that round, yeah, sure Valor gets the best resource-to-benefit ratio.

How often will that be true though? In a party with great martial frontline or other casters for heavy visibility/movement control, yeah, you should not face more than one or two attacks unless you actually look for it.
In smaller parties? In parties where you're the main caster? Whatever powerful spell you succeed to land to strongly tip the fight towards your party will immediately brand you as a prime target for whomever can threaten you (close-by melee, archers, casters).

When you don't know how much danger you'll face that round, the Defensive Flourish will benefit all AC-based threats, not just one. Another thing to note, at least it gives you immediate perspective of whether it will be useless (bad roll), decent (medium roll) or awesome (great roll). So you still has whatever left movement you have, and possibly bonus action, and possibly reaction to take care of the next immediate danger.
On that, please note that, apparently unknown to you, the Flourish can be stacked with Shield or Defensive Duelist (which is less good than Shield but at least does not consume resource). So technically Swords Bard has the best "nova defense" of all Bards, as well as the best or second best (depending on whether Valor wields shield ;)) "sustainable" after level 14 since you can get a free 1d6 (provided he uses Attack, which is the true debatable thing here).

You also forget that those extra 10 feet you get just from taking the Attack action may very simply avoid being targeted in the first place, or at least tune up the balance in your favor (reaching a cover or a place of obscuration for example, great against ranged attacks).
Be smart and wield a hand crossbow or dual-wield throwable weapons (there is no requirement of making melee weapon attack): especially until level 10 or so, the vast majority of melee enemies will need to either Dash to keep up with you and hope for an OA, or resort to thrown weapons/ranged attacks which are usually less dangerous.
Especially if you stack Mobile feat on that if you really want to go the gish way, you have become nearly as fast as a Rogue without needing bonus action.

Dismissing the extra damage also seem kinda dishonest to me. Like others said before me, it's a bit of extra damage that may make a difference at low levels, and for some time you get more of it than a Battlemaster.

By the way you (and others) also seem to forget about using the weapon as a focus: this means you can dual-wield without problem, or grapple without problem, or use an object without problem: you can still attack and/or cast spells seamlessly. Double the bonus if/when you find a magic weapon.

In short, you completely missed the point of the archetype. ;)

[krugaan]

Am playing hexswordbard in current campaign.

Sword and shield, am tanky as hell, between shield, armor, flourishes, shield, darkness, protection from good/evil, bonus action healing words, etc.

Damage is fairly decent too, between hex and hexblades curse and elvish accuracy. I do have a frostbrand, though.

Not to mention being party face, being extremely mobile with fly, misty step, and extra movement, and decent saves all around.

The only area I feel lacking is in area denial and area damage.

[ad_hoc]

With exceptions (Ability checks for Lore, Fluorishes for Swords...), you can't normally inspire yourself...

yeah should read, 'is given' rather than 'can be given'.


So basically you're saying that the bonus AC is mostly useless because you use it in anticipation, contrarily to Shield/Valor's "on the fly" one...

Frankly, it's a pointless argument. You usually have a decent knowledge about the enemy's ability to threaten you.

But you don't know what their rolls are. That's the point.

I'm not saying Swords is bad, it's just slightly weaker than Valor. I wouldn't be surprised if Swords was more fun for more people than Valor. Both are fine choices.

[jas61292]

The difference, imo between a sword bard and a valor bard is all in the damage. Sure, both get two attacks, but only the sword bard is a real melee combatant. Sure, two attacks mean a valor bard is competent if caught in melee, but only in the same way that a barbarian is competent if forced to use ranged attacks. They are not actually good at it, but don't suffer too badly if forced into that situation.

A sword bard, on the other hand has a fighting style and abilities that actually add to damage. They can actually be a threatening combatant who will sometimes want to be right up next to an enemy. The only time a valor bard wants to be in melee is if means putting yourself between the enemy and the squishies. The sword bard on the other hand wants to be there, not necessarily all the time, but any time that they don't have a specific reason not to be, especially at higher levels when they get master flourish.

Whether or not this is an ideal thing is certainly debatable, but I'd argue that a sword bard is a far better jack of all trades, being actually decent at most things rather than being excellent in a support role and simply passable in melee.

[MaxWilson]

This is a common mistake and it is similar to Mage Armour vs Shield. People see +3 AC for 8 hours and think that provides more defense than +5AC for a round. Only one is cast ahead of time and one is cast after seeing the roll. Only 1 in 7 attacks on average will be impacted by Mage Armour. At +3 it might not save you from a devastating attack where as the +5 might. Shield is more cost effective unless you're taking a lot of attacks. If choosing between them, go with Shield (though both is better of course).

In the scenario you seem to be describing, Shield and Mage Armor are both basically pointless.

If you've got a base AC of 10-12 from Dex only, and you're planning on not taking a lot of attacks... frankly it doesn't matter whether you go with Mage Armor or Shield. Your main defense is going to be your front-liner PC buddies, not your personal AC. Even if you don't Shield or Mage Armor at all, you can probably just afford to soak the occasional 10 HP hit.

Shield is valuable in the other scenario, where you are a front-liner facing 3 or more attacks for a potential 40-80 HP per turn, and you're relying on Shield to get you from AC 21 to 26 so that you're not taking 20-30 HP of damage every turn. E.g.

1 8th level AC 21 Forge Cleric/Necromancer tank vs. 2 Shoosuvas (1.4x Deadly):

Without Shield: 30.4 damage taken per round plus about 2 DC 14 Con saves every 3 rounds to avoid paralyzation.

With Shield: 10.9 damage taken per round plus about 1 DC 14 Con save every 10 rounds to avoid paralyzation.

With Shield and Dodging or with Blur: 0.94 damage taken per round plus about 1 DC 14 Con save every 50 rounds.

The guy with the Shield can afford to sit in melee indefinitely (from a HP safety perspective at least--he's still burning about 1.3 spell points per round on Shield) while his buddies kill the Shoosuvas with ranged attacks from behind him. For him, Shoosuvas are a solved problem unless he gets very unlucky.

That is what Shield is for. Using it to gain AC 15-17 is a complete waste of a perfectly good spell.

Mage Armor on the other hand is for druids and Dex-based Eldritch Knights.

[Citan]

yeah should read, 'is given' rather than 'can be given'.



But you don't know what their rolls are. That's the point.

I'm not saying Swords is bad, it's just slightly weaker than Valor. I wouldn't be surprised if Swords was more fun for more people than Valor. Both are fine choices.
Yeah, you don't know their rolls, but after a few attacks you know their actual chance of hitting you.

Also, while Valor Bard cannot actually use the Bardic Inspiration on himself (creatures you give Bardic Inspiration to cannot "give it back" to you, it's not an actual thing XD), let's pursue the theorical point.

At level 5, most enemies have a +4 to hit. A Swords Bard can boast a 20 AC (17 from armor + 3 from average roll of Bardic). All enemies attacking you will need to hit 16, thats pretty low.
Valor Bard would sport a 19 AC if wielding a shield, while he can use Combat Inspiration against one attack for the whole round. So against one attack, at the price of reaction, you can sport an average 22 AC. Good but not great.

So against a limited number of attacks, and provided the Valor Bard is playing mid-range or solo but not tanking, it's better. But only with both conditions.
Because Swords Bard has no special use of reaction, so it means he can use it to make an OA, maybe with Sentinel if he wanted to act as an off-tank (or cast a spell if going Warcaster route).

Now lets compare level 10, supposing both Bards are trying to set themselves up for good resilience.
Valor Bard may have taken Medium Armor Master, so now sports AC 20.
He may also have found a magic shield +1, so 21.
And the average roll is now +5 IIRC. So for a reaction, he can get an average 26 AC against one attack, and potentially up to 31.

Now Swords Bard:
Average roll being +5, when using Attack, he will usually get somewhere around 22 AC for the whole round. And up to 27. Make that 24/29 if he went for Moderately Armored.
AND he can still use his reaction on whatever ability he has (Shield from Magic Secrets to put himself beyond any reach, Sentinel to shut down the one enemy that managed to keep up with him, Warcaster to use a Dissonant Whispers and redirect that enemy back or Command to put him prone etc).

So the nice thing of Valor Bard is not really that Combat Inspiration is used like a makeshift Shield. It's rather It's everything else:
- the fact that that he can "distribute" those bonus AC to his allies in however way he want, possibly differently each time, depending on current situation.
- the fact he gets great defense (shield+medium) and attack (all martial weapons means longbow), meaning he has less resources to spent to keep his own life and concentration.
- that he can cast a spell and still make a weapon attack (situational in my eyes unless you build around, but still can be nice).

Both just pursue different goals: Valor is all about supporting others, Swords is about supporting self. :)